Referendum on RUSA

Since its inception about two years ago I've been baffled as to
precisely what the Rutgers University Student Assembly does here on
campus. Occasionally — and sometimes just for kicks — I would ask
someone from the organization what it is they do. Their face would
light up. "What a wonderful question!" they must have been
thinking. "At last, an opportunity to enlighten an interested
constituent."

They would begin their statement quite confidently and be sure
to hit all the talking points. There would invariably be some
mention of representing students' voices on campus and passing
resolutions to make positive changes. But this never seemed to
clarify the issue for me. I'm just a layperson, I would try to
explain, and it is unreasonable to expect me to understand what
such abstract terms actually mean. And so they would backpedal and
attempt to reconstruct what it is that RUSA does. It was no use. It
seemed I was too dense.

In fact, it wasn't until the current debate about RUSA's retreat
that I finally understood what the organization actually does. It's
simple you see: They conjure up creative ways to waste our student
funding! I can rest peacefully.

Yesterday's letter "RUSA stands united despite disagreements on
retreat," coauthored by University Affairs Chair Ben West and RUSA
Chair Werner Born, only reassured me of how out of touch RUSA is. I
expected to hear some compelling reasons why we should no longer be
upset that RUSA was spending up to $20,000 to tell ghost stories
and toast marshmallows. What was published instead was a heartfelt
letter, assuring us that West and Born are working out their
disagreements and overcoming their differences. The student body
should have no qualms, the duo exclaimed, since the balance of
student government no longer hangs on their precarious
relationship. We'll live another day, with or without the REXL
Quads bus stop.

But seriously, the letter was a microcosm of RUSA's inability to
prove its own self worth. In countering the barrage of criticism
hurled its way this past week, the letter proclaimed that it will
be passing not one but three resolutions. The first to open up the
idea of a future retreat to public debate, the second to reenact a
code of ethics in order to maintain decorum during this debate and
a third to mandate community service projects by members. Born and
West added this third resolution as a response to "the biggest
criticism with the retreat's merits … that it is not
community-service oriented." Is that really the biggest criticism?
Would we be OK with up to $20,000 being squandered if it somehow
involved RUSA members "painting at local schools" or helping with
"gardening projects" as they suggest?

The very line of reasoning behind the resolutions is
problematic. It suggests that RUSA has a romanticized image of
itself. We're led to believe that any problem faced by the
organization can instantly be fixed by its own internal mechanisms.
A few "Whereas" and "Be it hereby resolved" statements and poof,
problem solved. The above three resolutions would be unnecessary if
they took the simple step of not having the retreat ever again. The
very notion of opening the idea up for future debate misses the
point entirely. Students have already expressed their
dissatisfaction. Moreover, they are unlikely to waste their time
attending meetings to remind the organization of their position a
second or third time.

This idea of student apathy speaks directly to the larger issue:
Only the individuals within student government actually care about
student government. The barriers to entry for joining RUSA have
more to do with the patience involved with acquiring a particular
amount of signatures than it does with anything that makes our
representatives inherently qualified. Beyond this, the turnout of
campus elections is dismally low. Most authoritarian dictators have
a more credible election mandate than our RUSA representatives.
Even more alarming, despite the low barriers to entry students
overwhelmingly opt not to participate in running for student
government; elections continue to feature candidates running
unopposed and seats often remain unfilled.

It follows that only the individuals who truly wish to be in
student government are joining in the first place. Are these
self-selecting students really the types who need a team building
retreat to inspire them toward a common cause? But even more
pertinent, what is this common cause, and is it essential to the
point that student funds should be displaced from more productive
usage in order to fund it?

Last spring RUSA passed 20 resolutions. Of these, six dealt with
matters pertaining to itself. These included impeachment, election
guidelines, standing rules and various internal restructuring. The
remaining resolutions ranged from banning advertisements in
classrooms, approving meal sign-aways and offering symbolic
gestures commending the University for cutting its contract with
Russell Apparel and supporting the Day of Silence rally. Let's be
honest, there are middle school class councils passing more
impactful resolutions.

In retrospect, the question I posed at the beginning of this
article remains valid. I don't understand what RUSA does and have
never heard a valid justification for why it should be funded
beyond what is absolutely necessary. I've never even heard a cogent
argument for its existence. Essentially it has one very meaningful
purpose — to judiciously allocate funding across student
groups.

Mr. Born, your letter seemed to avoid the issue. If you can't
clearly articulate the purposes of this retreat, why should it even
be open for discussion? Why should money that could potentially
boost severely underfunded organizations be instead spent on a
student government powwow? That is what your letter was supposed to
address, but I'm happy for you and Mr. West, really.

Eric Knecht is a Rutgers College senior majoring in economics
and history. His column, "Unfair and Unbalanced," runs on alternate
Tuesdays. He welcomes feedback at eknecht@eden.rutgers.edu.